About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
. jack welch, the former v. owe of general electric, tweeted this. welch later came on cnn's "anderson cooper 360" and said if he had that tweet to do over again, he would have added one thing. >> so many politicians these days are saying like michele bachmann will say something that factually is nocht correct and they'll say i'm just asking the question. is it responsible to say i'm just asking the question, but to say they'll do anything. >> i should have put the question mark. a question mark would have been better at the back of that. >> so you are kind of backing away -- >> i'm not backing away. >> you wish you could amend your tweet? >> i wish i added a question mark to the back of it. but the same implications. >> to say something like this is like donald trump saying that president obama is not an american citizen without any proof. you are jack welch. you got to take this opportunity while everybody is listening to you to actually say yes, anderson, i'm taking that tweet back. i'm going to accepted a new tweet to say i was exaggerating. there are problems, maybe bls should loo
in the latest job report and showing a dip in the unemployment. former chairman jack welch is skeptical. meaning that employers added a modest 114,000 jobs and the drop comes at a critical time for the president who is coming off a weak debate performance with romney. joining us is new york times best selling author out with the latest book. ann coulter. at this point in time the president said we will be at 5.6 and enjoying that part of the economy and a more comfortable position and now they are running with this new number. what is your response. >> it is noticeable that a lot of economist are saying this is not possible. you would need more than 114,000 jobbings. i don't think it matters except to broadcasting tv shows or writing for newspaper what number they throw up on the screen. people know they are out of work and in jobs and they are way overqualified for and working part-time. so many people are going out of business and under working now. 23 million unemployed difference does it make? >> the numbers simply write away the 211,000,000 people stopping to look for people. >> oh, yes. pe
. but some nay sayers wonder if it is too good to be true. jack welch, former ceo, tweets unbelievable jobs numbers, the chicago guys will do anything, can't debate, so change numbers. and one group suggested maybe somebody played with the numbers. >> very good timing for the president. if he mapped it out to be able to have it, this is one you would want to have. he placed the unemployment as the longest time in history knew. >> but the labor department scoffed at the notion that anybody manipulated the jobs report. >> it is collected by the interviewers who are all career federal employees. so you would have to imagine that the people who participate in the survey, and they do this voluntarily, are for some reason trying to manipulate things. >> and it is not unusual for the surveys, one based on asking the companies, the other based on asking individuals, to have a wide difference, why? the household survey shows all sorts of workers, including self-employed and certain agriculture workers. and it is based on a much smaller sample than the other businesses. keith hall says that the numbe
. doug we talked about a tweet from jack welch. did that ignite the controversy? >>reporter: the recovery surrounding friday's release of the unemployment numbers continues to swirl after jack welch, the respected former c.e.o. of g.e. treated "unbelievable jobs numbers. the chicago guys will do anything. can't debate? change numbers." facing criticism if the tweet he stuck by the criticism of the numbers. >> this number is made up of a whole mess of assumptions: who is participating, who is not working, who is trying for work, who has dropped out. it just begs the question. i think there ought to be a good discussion how this number is calculated. >>reporter: most analysts and the obama campaign are dismanage the criticisms as "without evidence." >> we wonder why institutions in this country are, the perception of institutions are failing, because people go on tv and make sufficient h stuff -- make stuff up. >> they had full charge of the first two years and the policies this president put into place actually made it worse, including the fact that obamacare is tale, if you ask employers,
numbers so wrong. jack welch went further obviously the former ceo of g.e. and he said unbelievable jobs numbers. the these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate so they change the numbers. set person who suggested something fishy was going on. >> and of course our own lou dobbs has said no the bureau of labor statistics is insulated entity and peter morris is i on our show a short time ago said no, this isn't the case that they would never cook the books for a white house. that's not something they would do. they are economists and statisticians and there might be anomaly in the numbers. here was jack welch yesterday talking to cavuto and he said something smells funny here, listen. >> these numbers don't smell right when you think about where the economy is right now. every economist this morning predicted roughly 90 to 120,000 and 8.2 unemployment came out very favorably just one tenth of a point below when the president took office. >> well, it's funny when people manipulate numbers back and forth on both sides. i always think about the 23 million people who don't have a job an
and significant decrease in the unemployment rate. jack welch, he went to as far to suggest that the numbers may be manipulated by the obama administration. do you think that the numbers add up? >> i think the suggestion that the numbers was cooked is relatively ridiculous. that being said. economists at the labor department will admit freely that there is a lot of margin of error in these numbers. a month after each job report these numbers are revised upward or downward. the question of the number came out of the household survey, 800,000 plus number, there is a lot of margin for error, possibly as much as 400,000. that is admitted by folks within the labor department, as well. i think you can't get too hung up on the overall numbers because typically these are revised upward or downward. that tends to happen a month later when we stop paying attention. >> heather: what will the numbers do in terms of swaying voters' opinions, specifically undecided voter? do you expect to see a change in the polls as a result of this? >> it's a tough question. i generally think the jobs reports do not move as
his anniversary on the night of the debate. >> peter: and interesting 7.8% number, economists and jack welch, where did this come from, the raw numbers put out and a disconnect. >> clayton: we have to look the at revised numbers a few months later and maybe find out in december what the true number was or were in september. but we have new numbers out of ohio. the all important battle ground state of ohio where president obama has been leading significantly there. in recent polls, well not significantly, but 5 or 4 points accord to go what karl rove was talking about, 49-50%. and looking at virginia, and there mitt romney has pulled ahead of president obama 49-48% within the mar begin of error, but definitely experiencing a debate bounce. and speaking of which, let's talk about the money they have been able to raise because this plays into how people are feeling after the debate as well. in just the 48 hours since the debate, mitt romney has been able to raise 12 million dollars online and just staggering numbers. >> peter: at the same time, the president announced that they raised 181
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)